Appellate court upholds PTI denial in Phillipsburg phony money scheme

PHILLIPSBURG — The denial of a pre-trial intervention application for a man charged with multiple counts of theft in a counterfeit money scheme has been upheld.

Jimmy Delpeche, 31, of Brooklyn, N.Y., was arrested on Sept. 24, 2009, along with Donnetta Jackson, 27, of Brooklyn and Tiffany Moore, 20, of New York City.

According to court records, Delpeche gave Jackson and Moore phony $100 bills to use for purchasing items that cost about $20 at the Phillipsburg Mall. Jackson and Moore would then keep their purchases and give Delpeche the $80 they received in real cash as change.

Phillipsburg Mall security was alerted to the suspected frauds and eventually apprehended the three people in various locations outside the Phillipsburg Mall.

According to the court opinion released on Aug. 27, Delpeche was charged with multiple counts of theft and conspiracy of varying degrees. Delpeche applied for the pre-trial intervention program (PTI) but was rejected. In the program, the defendant is placed on probation. If they successfully complete the probationary period without getting into any more trouble, the charges are dismissed.

Delpeche was rejected by the program director, who found that Delpeche was not fully honest during his interview with her. After his arrest Delpeche also told police he had participated in a similar scheme in Massachusetts but denied that when he applied to PTI, according to the court opinion.

The director also found that Delpeche’s attitude was “such that he seems to be avoiding recognition of the extent of his role/responsibility” in the scheme. His attitude would likely cause him to fail at PTI, the director believed.

The prosecutor then also rejected the application.

Delpeche appealed and the law division of the state Superior Court upheld the denial. Delpeche then appealed to the next level.

The appellate judges found some fault with how the application was handled but still upheld the lower court’s decision.

“Although we agree that the prosecutor's two-tiered approach to rejecting the defendant denied him due process and that consideration of Guideline 5 as a basis for rejection was improper, we are nonetheless satisfied the denial was not a patent and gross abuse of discretion,” the appellate judges wrote.

Prosecutors are given wide latitude when deciding who gets into PTI. However, anyone who believes they were rejected unfairly must prove the rejection was an egregious example of injustice and unfairness, the judges wrote.

Delpeche, “although acknowledging his guilt when he was not required to do so, attempted to minimize his role by suggesting that others were to blame for his actions because they encouraged his actions," the judges wrote. "Defendant supplied the fake money to Moore and Jackson, drove them to the mall for the purpose of making purchases with the fake one-hundred-dollar bills, waited for them to complete the transactions, and intended to retain eighty percent of the cash the women received back from their purchases. Thus, the interviewer's conclusion that defendant was not forthright is supported by the record and supports the additional conclusion that his attitude would render PTI services ineffective."

Delpeche eventually pleaded guilty as did Jackson. There is no record of any conviction for Moore.